Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Firearms are not evil

Announcements Posted on
The News & Current Affairs and Society forums need more moderators! 20-04-2014
Post on TSR and win a prize! Find out more... 10-04-2014
    • 60 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by numb3rb0y)
    It would be wrong to shoot to kill, but if they do end up dead as a result of being shot, then they accepted that risk when they attempted to put me in imminent danger.
    How does one determine whether a shot will kill? Especially in a volatile and charged situation such as a burglary? Furthermore death is not the only bad thing that would happen. Should stealing a DVD player result in someone being a tetraplegic for the rest of their days?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan-IW)
    I'm yet to see the moral case for killing machines,
    If you don't see the moral good in saving a life then this debate is pointless.
    • 60 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    If someone comes into my property with the intent to rob I have no idea what his intentions are. He may well want to beat me, he may well want to rape my spouse (well, that ones theoretical) if he didn't want to be shot dead he shouldn't have entered my property.
    In that case do Libertarians heartily support the death penalty for all burglars?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    How does one determine whether a shot will kill? Especially in a volatile and charged situation such as a burglary? Furthermore death is not the only bad thing that would happen. Should stealing a DVD player result in someone being a tetraplegic for the rest of their days?
    I'm saying shooting with intent to kill would be wrong, but shooting without wouldn't be. If the shot ended up killing, then so be it. Again, if you aggressively place someone in danger of imminent harm then you take on the responsibility for any of the consequences it may bring upon yourself.
    • Thread Starter
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan-IW)
    Could you link a reliable source explaining the reasons why Hitler decided not to invade Switzerland?
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro5.html

    (Original post by Dan-IW)
    I don't care if they (you) like it. They (you) are morally wrong for liking it. I'm sorry, but some things should just be prohibited (as racism should be, although I know you're big fans of allowing that to fester). This is, of course, just my opinion, I'm yet to see the moral case for killing machines,
    You're morally wrong for eating bread because I don't like bread.

    I don't give a **** about what you think of my morals. You have no absolutely no justification in imposing your morals on me.

    (Original post by Democracy)
    In that case do Libertarians heartily support the death penalty for all burglars?
    I don't support the death penalty. I support self defence.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    In that case do Libertarians heartily support the death penalty for all burglars?
    Killing someone in self-defence is not the same as killing them in punishment.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    How does one determine whether a shot will kill? Especially in a volatile and charged situation such as a burglary?
    I'm pretty sure the courts could make a go of it.

    Should stealing a DVD player result in someone being a tetraplegic for the rest of their days?
    It's not a matter of 'should' by any manner of means; it's a reasonable consequence of certain actions. I don't believe racing drivers should be injured for doing their job, but it is certainly a possibility that they should expect, and can hardly feel particularly hard done by if it happens.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    OP
    Yes in theory, no in practice. This society is sick, when parents take responsibility for their children and get them to behave in a civil manner, perhaps then.

    Also, it's not the job of the government to do the parenting, they already do enough of that. It is their job to enforce the law, and they aren't doing enough of that.
    • 60 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Killing someone in self-defence is not the same as killing them in punishment.
    Why is there a difference? Bagration wrote:

    If someone comes into my property with the intent to rob I have no idea what his intentions are. He may well want to beat me, he may well want to rape my spouse (well, that ones theoretical) if he didn't want to be shot dead he shouldn't have entered my property.
    None of those things change if the bloke was arrested by the coppers instead of being shot by you. The intent (if there was any) of beating you and raping your spouse is still there. I mean that's what your shooting him for, it seems like a logical fallacy and inconsistent to suggest it's alright to shoot him there for that intent but not to shoot him later for the same thing.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    You're morally wrong for eating bread because I don't like bread.

    I don't give a **** about what you think of my morals. You have no absolutely no justification in imposing your morals on me.
    This is what it really comes down to. A liberal world lets people be. Yeah you might disagree with a lot of the things that are legal but there's no obligation to partake in it yourself.

    But I'd still rather live in that world than one where there are harmless things I want to do, but can't because of state opression. Liberalism is simply better than totalitarianism, for the people.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I've just realised how pointless arguing on the internet is.
    • Thread Starter
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
    Yes in theory, no in practice. This society is sick, when parents take responsibility for their children and get them to behave in a civil manner, perhaps then.

    Also, it's not the job of the government to do the parenting, they already do enough of that. It is their job to enforce the law, and they aren't doing enough of that.
    Admittedly, this is probably the best opposition to my OP raised in this thread.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    Why is there a difference? Bagration wrote:

    None of those things change if the bloke was arrested by the coppers instead of being shot by you.
    Er, yes they do. After he's in jail, his chances of raping your wife or murdering you in your bed drops to nil.
    • Thread Starter
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    None of those things change if the bloke was arrested by the coppers instead of being shot by you. The intent (if there was any) of beating you and raping your spouse is still there. I mean that's what your shooting him for, it seems like a logical fallacy and inconsistent to suggest it's alright to shoot him there for that intent but not to shoot him later for the same thing.
    Cops, lol, by the time they arrive, you might be dead. He or his friends might have beaten you to death. There is a difference here. People who support the right to keep and bear arms support the right to defend their family, home, and country. Anyone else believes that justice is only done if its administered through a judge, regardless of how many innocent people die in the process.

    I don't believe in the Government administering the death penalty. If someone raped my wife and you put him up in front of me in a field I would shoot him where he stood tbh.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    None of those things change if the bloke was arrested by the coppers instead of being shot by you. The intent (if there was any) of beating you and raping your spouse is still there. I mean that's what your shooting him for, it seems like a logical fallacy and inconsistent to suggest it's alright to shoot him there for that intent but not to shoot him later for the same thing.
    The police are not primarily a protectionary force, but rather investigate crimes after the fact. It's entirely plausible that they wouldn't get there in time to stop the intruder from doing whatever he intended to do before he could do it.

    A gun in the hand of the homeowner, on the other hand...
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    How do we ensure that, in terms of gun crime and homicide, we follow the Swiss and not the Americans? Given that we seem culturally closer to the US than Switzerland (relatively uncontentious, I would hope), it would seem reasonable to assume that legalising guns would lead to an increase in the level and rate of gun crime to a comparable state with the US.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by numb3rb0y)
    If you don't see the moral good in saving a life then this debate is pointless.
    Well, if they don't have a gun, why would I need one? If you legalise guns, they become more widespread, and so I'm more likely to 'need' one, it's a nice circle for you. The intention of guns is wrong, argue against that - their intention is to kill, say that that isn't morally vile.

    (Original post by Bagration)
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro5.html
    That's an impartial source? :rolleyes:

    (Original post by Bagration)
    You're morally wrong for eating bread because I don't like bread.

    I don't give a **** about what you think of my morals. You have no absolutely no justification in imposing your morals on me.
    There are correct answers to moral questions. You've got to refute the argument, not spew rubbish.
    • 60 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Er, yes they do. After he's in jail, his chances of raping your wife or murdering you in your bed drops to nil.
    No but his intent to do those things was still there, he might have got arrested before he could do them.

    You are shooting someone who's stealing your TV cause you believe he might have the intent to beat the **** out of you. You do not know this for certain.

    If the cops by some miracle arrest him before he can confirm your suspicion either way, that still doesn't change the fact that he still might have intended to beat you silly. Why should he be punished any differently by the courts than by you.

    In each situation (whether in your house or after being arrested) he's done nothing apart from steal a telly...why's it okay not to give him the benefit of the doubt and shoot him at home cause he MIGHT be intending to rape you...but in the courts the same factor isn't taken into consideration.
    • Thread Starter
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan-IW)
    That's an impartial source? :rolleyes:
    It's impartial enough to discredit the fact you have no evidence - and also the fact it's an interview with an author.

    (Original post by Dan-IW)
    There are correct answers to moral questions.
    Prove it. Go on - find some evidence.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan-IW)
    Well, if they don't have a gun, why would I need one? If you legalise guns, they become more widespread, and so I'm more likely to 'need' one, it's a nice circle for you. The intention of guns is wrong, argue against that - their intention is to kill, say that that isn't morally vile.
    They do have guns, even in a country with some of the most restrictive gun laws on the planet, so that line argument doesn't really work.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By completing the slider below you agree to The Student Room's terms & conditions and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

    You don't slide that way? No problem.

Updated: December 19, 2008
Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.